I Called The President On Phone But He Did Not Allow Me To Talk To Him – Archbishop Duncan Williams

Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams has recounted a personal encounter involving a former Ghanaian president, describing an experience in which his attempt to speak directly with the head of state was instead handled by an individual he portrayed as highly influential within the presidency.

According to the Archbishop, he once placed a call to the president but was surprised when another person answered. The individual reportedly explained that the president was unavailable and assured Duncan-Williams that the leader would return his call.

However, the expected response never came. Duncan-Williams said he waited for several hours but did not receive the promised call from the president.

The Archbishop suggested that the person who answered the phone wielded considerable influence within the administration. He claimed that the individual had become so powerful that some people reportedly preferred communicating through him rather than seeking direct access to the president.

Although Duncan-Williams did not identify the person, his account suggested that the individual’s influence was so extensive that it created the perception of an administration operating with two centres of presidential authority.

He further recounted that the same individual later contacted him privately over a disagreement involving the president and sought his assistance in resolving the matter. Duncan-Williams said he chose not to become directly involved, responding instead that he would pray for the situation.

Reflecting on the broader implications of his experience, the Archbishop expressed concern about the influence that unelected individuals can acquire within government. He stressed the importance of ensuring that elected leaders retain control over decision-making and are not effectively governed by powerful figures operating behind the scenes.

Duncan-Williams specifically expressed the hope that President John Dramani Mahama would not find himself in a situation where his authority is compromised or controlled by individuals around him.

His comments have generated discussion about the informal networks of influence that can develop around political leaders. They have also renewed questions about access to presidents, the role of influential advisers and associates, and how such relationships can affect decision-making at the highest levels of government.

While the Archbishop did not name the individual or provide further details about the administration involved, his account has added to broader conversations about political leadership, institutional authority and the need for elected officials to maintain clear control over governance.